Review: Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets 596
Most of the cast is back again for the sophomore film. If you liked them before, you'll like them again, even if the boys voices have started changing and everyone is a little taller than they were last november.
The most substantial new character this time around is Gilderoy Lockhart played over the top and on the money by Kenneth Branagh. Alan Rickman's Severus Snape is practically a bit part here, but Richard Harris's Dumbledore gets a lot of scenes.
The general plot is as follows: Harry Returns to Hogwarts for his second year of wizarding school. He keeps getting signals and warnings that there will be trouble, but he ignores them and goes right on in anyway (Wouldn't you if you had his home life?). Anyway, at school students keep turning up petrified and the legend of the Chamber of Secrets revealed. Beyond that there's a little quidditch, rivalry with the other houses, and a mystery needing solving.
Generic, yes. But it's solidly produced and entertaining. Course I'm right in line for next year because I think the next 2 books are superior to the first 2.
As for the FX, I think they're a bit better than last time around. Especially during the Quidditch matches. The first films game sequences looked bad. Everything looked CG. This time around things are much more convincing. They also tackled Dobby the house elf and did him as a full CG character. The rendering on Dobby is just beautiful. Any still shot from his scenes would convince you that they just filmed a house elf right on set. And the fabric moves really well. Unfortunately the motion is all off. His weight feels wrong. His interaction with the set seems like he's a muppet. Hopefully they can nail him down before Goblet of Fire when there are many house elf scenes.
Anyway, I think this film is weaker than the first one, but I think that mostly this is because the book really doesn't add as much to the larger story. It's a solid movie and it stands well on its own feet, but knowing the bigger things yet to come gets me drooling for the next one. I'm hoping that handing the series off to someone besides Chris Columbus will give it a shot in the arm.
I know what's in the Chamber of Secrets.... (Score:5, Funny)
Harry found an old envelope, and inside it reads
FIRST POST!
Re:I know what's in the Chamber of Secrets.... (Score:3, Funny)
Embarassment (Score:5, Funny)
That makes one of us.
Re:Embarassment (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not embarassed to admit that I'm 26 years old and a fan of Harry Potter.
... said the Anonymous Coward.
Re:Embarassment (Score:2)
Re:Embarassment (Score:5, Funny)
Well, guess I'd better get back to work on my ceramic replica swords for the Two Towers premiere. now that my mithril tunic is done, I just have to carve all the runes. I figure with fifty or sixty more hours of work, I'll be just about ready.
-schussat
Re:Embarassment (Score:4, Informative)
Oh man, my best friend, my brother, and I sat in line for Episode 1 for 18 hours.
We passed the time by playing Magic, and reading Dragon magazine.
My wife still talks about it, calling us "Neerrdd!" in her best Homer Simpson voice.
On topic: I didn't like this film nearly as much as the first one. I haven't read the books, and this felt more like a mystery caper, rather than the adventure of the first one. I'm pretty sure it's blasphemous to say this, but I thought the Quidditch match was unnecessarily long, and didn't move the story forward enough to justify its length.
As long as I'm going total Comic-book guy on this, does it bother anyone else that Harry Potter is supposed to be this great and powerful wizard, but his friends at Hogwarts always seem to be saving his ass?
Okay, I'm off to build a black and blue deck in preparation for the Two Towers opening. I know I have a Lord of the Pit around here somewhere...
Re:Embarassment (Score:3, Insightful)
Do it. Especially if you're kids have the vaguest interest in it. Fantastic geek bonding experience. Even if they don't, the books are still really fun stuff (not as good as Niven or Twain, but still great). They're quick reads, except that by book four Rowling begins suffering from Steven-King-Epic-Tome-ititus. I hope her editor grows a set of balls and starts editing again in book five.
Harry Potter is supposed to be this great and powerful wizard, but his friends at Hogwarts always seem to be saving his ass?
In the first book, Rowling was just using it as a crutch to make Harry a hero as quickly as possible, just as she made the "150 points for the seeker" rule in quidditch. It's a cheap trick, but no harm done as it got the setting going quickly so she could jump immediately into the meat of the tale. Thankfully, she turns it into the fame vs. reality theme in later books that other posters talk about (in the book the kid with the camera [Collin] has a much bigger role and makes Harry's life abject Hell with all the hero worship).
Anyway, don't rap her for it. I'd bet anything she's regretting the heck out of the "150 points" thing and some of the other hero trappings now that she's living with it over several books. No surprise of course - it's doubtful she was expecting even the first book to get published. It's like people who condemn Tolkien as racist for his protrayal of Orcs when in fact he was just looking for expendable, "red shirt" style bad guys. Short term decisions often don't stand up to long term scrutiny. Thankfully, in entertainment that can be forgiven.
Re:Embarassment (Score:4, Funny)
You should hear her do Professor Frink.
Wait, that doesn't sound right...
Uhh...OINK OINK OINK!
*vroommm*
Re:Embarassment (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Embarassment (Score:3, Insightful)
Quiddich could be a truly exciting and awesome game, IF catching the snitch simply ended the game (none of this 150 points nonesense). That way, each team member would MATTER because if one team is behind and the snitch appears, the losing team has to pull together and gain points while their seeker tries to delay their opposite's catching of the seeker.
That rule modification would make for some really exciting, nailbiter scenes in which, say, Harry's team is down by 20 points. The snitch appears. Harry knows that he can't catch the snitch UNTIL his team pulls up those 20 points, so he tries to stay inbetween the snitch and the other team's seeker. His team knows that he can't keep the other seeker from the snitch forever, so they rally and try to score those 30 points. The other team knows that it is only a matter of time until their seeker can grab the snitch, so they play hard defense to keep Harry's team down until their seeker is able to do so.
There. Exciting, TEAM sport. Harry's role would still be important, and the book/movie scenes would be much more exciting because the entire team would be involved.
ILM (Score:5, Informative)
Job well done ILM.
Re:ILM (Score:2, Informative)
~Noodle
Re:ILM (Score:4, Informative)
While ILM worked on Dobby and the Quiditch match, facilities such as The Moving Picture Company produced the opening sequence, the Flying Ford Anglia, the Whomping Willow and the snake in the duelling scene. Mill Film (who won an oscar for Gladiator) did the spiders. I imagine other Soho companies such as Framestore CFC made significant contributions too, but alas my memory escapes me - corrections and additions welcome!
Over the past few years, Soho has been winning an increasing amount of film work. Double Negative, for example, did the effects for Pitch Black, Enemy at the Gates and Below. They currently have something like four jobs on as we speak. CFC (Computer Film Company, as it was then known) have done, among many other things, the effects for Blade2. Other projects farmed out among the Soho companies include Tomb Raider and the latest Bond film, Die Another Day.
Special effects cost a lot of money and, alas, are not as simple as pushing a few buttons and making the computer do the work. It involves vast numbers of talented people working together. To give you an idea, big facilities such as ILM employ many thousands of people, who all have their own speciality. Soho combined has just a fraction of that. This explains why the work for Potter and other films is farmed out to many companies and not just one. The upside, for the film studios, is that it is much more cost effective. After all, an effects company with a staff of 300 is a lot more nimble than a company of 10000. In an industry where the goalposts are always changing (new software, new techniques, new practices etc) this can be an important consideration.
- Relyx
Re:ILM (Score:5, Interesting)
That's really not the way things happened.
See, the first movie was filmed in order; the first scene was shot first, and the last scene last. This is not a terribly uncommon thing to do on a long shoot with kids of that age-- 10-12 or so. In fact, if you watch the first movie kinda carefully you can see that the kids grow up just a little through the film. In particular, Rupert Grint's voice starts to change slightly in the middle.
A consequence of this is the fact that some special effects sequences couldn't be started until close to the end of principle photography. Some of the biggest sequences in the movie-- like the Quiddich match, in particular-- were done in about three months. That's just not enough time.
This time around, they did things differently. They shot the most effects-laden scenes first-- everything with Dobby, the Quiddich scenes, the stuff with the basilisk-- first, and shipped them off to the FX houses. They had nine months to do those sequences this time around instead of three. The difference is clear.
So it's not so much that they weren't happy with the FX on the first film because the work was shoddy; it's just that they didn't have enough time in the schedule to do it any better.
The source on this, by the way, is Chris Columbus, in a recent interview with Charlie Rose.
Did anyone else pick this up? (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow, the resemblence was quite unsettling.
Pampered Jock, Patsy, Fraud. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this article [msn.com] does a great job of explaining why Harry Potter is a fraud.
Not to put too fine a point on it--the first movie was fun (and reminded me of my Oxford days, with good reason), but I was always uncomfortable with the messiah-like qualities given potter in the film. The article does a great job of expounding on them.
Re:Pampered Jock, Patsy, Fraud. (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh!?
Did someone at Slate miss their medication? What utter and total overblown tripe.
Re:Pampered Jock, Patsy, Fraud. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, and I'm no expert here, but to me this seems to be the primary difference between Star Wars and Star Trek. While I am sure to be corrected on this by the geektelligencia, my understanding is that there is something special in Star Wars in the Skywalker bloodline--indeed, the people with that bloodline seem to be disproportionately close to "the Force," Lucas' thin metaphor for Christian Faith. Those without the faith are just slackers--the other guys in the pod race or the well-meaning rebel pilots whose actions we know instinctively will be inconsequential.
Star trek to me much more a meritocracy (at least the picard version that I am most familiar with and the one with the woman captain janeway that I saw a few episodes of--I dont know much about the latest and greatest trek permutations.) Picard maintained his positon because he was brilliant and a good leader, etc.
-CRACIES (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, Star Wars tends towards monarchistic themes ("Princess Leia" isn't just because she's prissy) with a vague nod toward representative democracy in the vile (IMHO) prequels. But then monarchies are the stuff of romantic legend, and Star Wars is very romantic. Luke is the lost knight, etc.
Star Trek always *acted* like it was a meritocracy (kind of like America) but I had to wonder. Rarely did we get to see a washout, and while we were assured everyone was the best of the best they didn't seem to work at it very much -- too many adventures to take. Yet they were always innovating things in the field that "had never been done before" even by the weenies back at the labs.
Also, did you ever notice how everybody in the power circles knew each other, even though they were flung across the galaxy? It seemed very buddy-buddy. Don't tell me there wasn't an elitist component, and that Starfleet ran in families without the effects of influence.
Well, uh, back to Harry Potter -- what happened to all the wizard-wannabes "not good enough" for Hogwarts or its sister schools? Do you really want a bunch of magic school dropouts hanging out and causing trouble? Rowling should lok at this more in a later novel -- "Sorcery and its Discontents." At least in HP, unlike SW or ST, you really do see people STUDYING!
HP has monarchistic themes, too. Dumbledore seems very much like the King, McGonagal the window-dressing Queen (I think Dumbledore is gay
How does Christianity fare in these three epics? Poorly. No wonder the fundies are holding bookburnings. (Really, the religions ought to be strong enough not to worry what isn't said about them in these fables. It's just for fun.)
Re: flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pampered Jock, Patsy, Fraud. (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, part of the reason the series is so successful is that Harry is just a regular boy. If he were really something special, then he would be much harder to relate to.
Being an ordinary kid who finds himself in extraordinary circumstances makes his story much more compelling. Children can relate to Harry and even imagine that they too might be Wizards and Witches.
Re:Pampered Jock, Patsy, Fraud. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention - the series isn't finished yet. He's still a boy learning about life, who just recently learned (4th book, I believe) of his mother's sacrifice for him, and we have no idea what accomplishments or sacrifices he might choose to make in the final book.
Until the series is over, people shouldn't really be criticising Rowling for social statements made through the Potter series - as of now, I regard it as incomplete. It's as if I were to say:
Part 1: Rich people are better than poor people...
Part 2:
If you only hear part 1, and know that Part 2 exists, you shouldn't judge my views based only on Part 1...
Re:Pampered Jock, Patsy, Fraud. (Score:3, Insightful)
Supreman, batman all are frauds that way. All movies are fraud. I read the article it is absolute bullshit. The write is indiscriminately butchering the character.
Did your mom love you? Good, maybe you deserve to be a hero, too. The love of Harry's mother saves his life not once but twice in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Not only that, but her love for Harry sends Voldemort into hiding for 13 years, saving countless other lives in the process. The book and the movie should be named after Lily Potter. But thanks to the revisionist histories of J.K. Rowling, Lily's son is remembered as the world's savior.
I found the writer weird. The kind who see conspiracy in everything!Re:Pampered Jock, Patsy, Fraud. (Score:3, Interesting)
He's just an above-average fortune who inherited a large fortune, so that he didn't have to "find a way to get the money" --- a point the referenced article makes. He's not a fraud, but he's not exactly a self-made man, either.
Re:Pampered Jock, Patsy, Fraud. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, the only reason Frodo got to be the ring bearer in the first place was because he was the favorite relative of a rather unusual and famous (rich too!) hobbit who also just happens to give him a magic sword and mithril mail. Also doesn't hurt that he has a wizard/demi-god at his back to get the ball rolling either.
It could also be argued that the only reason a hobbit makes a good ring bearer is because, in general, they are a simple and contented folk whose biggest cultural conundrum is which pipe to bring to the latest social gathering. Look at Gollum. He gets it and the best the ring can cajole him into doing is living in a cave for a looong time.
Face it, Frodo is a hero because he's got the support and when it finally comes down to crunch time he does the heroic thing just like Harry Potter. Saying that one is more deserving of the title than the other is sophistry plain and simple.
This is worth thinking about (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose a child came up to you and confessed to feelings of inadequacy because of how dissimilar Harry P's life was to the child's. Some kids would be talking about the fact that they couldn't fly and turn invisible, and those kids would benefit from a talk about reality vs fantasy. But other kids would be talking about their inability to relate to the mindset and achievements of Harry... questions like: how does Harry know what to do all the time, or how can I be more popular like Harry? In these circumstances it would not be beneficial to lecture on the distinction between brooms and gravity. What's called for is an articulation of motivation, achievement, and what measures of worth should be applied to a person. Maybe the referred-to article went further than a broom-vs-gravity person would like, but to dismiss it altogether is to miss a real (like it or not) psychological dimension of the movie that has the potential to shape young minds. And if people at our age can't discuss it, even with a nod to having enjoyed the movie, then we're setting ourselves up to be empty handed when someone comes to us for advice.
Now I can't enjoy fantasy movies ever again.
.
What a bunch of Misguided Spoil sports (Score:5, Insightful)
"Simple: He's a glory hog who unfairly receives credit for the accomplishments of others and who skates through school by taking advantage of his inherited wealth and his establishment connections"
As anyone who has read the books knows Harry has always been uncomfortable with his fame. He also happens to be very sympathetic to Ron's and others financial situations and hardly worships money. If there is one thing that is central to the entire series and that Harry learns is the value of friendship and how wrong excluding and judging others is. He never asked to be favored by Dumbledore, but he also happens to not have a father since his was Murdered. You'll excuse him from wanting to form a tighter relationship with the one adult figure in his life that he knows truly looks out for him.
I love how the author also sides steps the 12 years of mental abuse and terrible living quarters Harry had endured. The fact that he isn't an Arsonist or Molester is a credit to him.
Harry while being full of natural talent is NOT a showoff. He also would risk his life for another without hesitation and actually does so in the books. How are these qualities not worth emulating?
"Harry Potter is a fraud, and the cult that has risen around him is based on a lie. Potter's claim to fame, his central accomplishment in life, is surviving a curse placed on him as an infant by the evil wizard Voldemort. "
Umm, every story has to has a beginning. To harp on that one point is to ignore future meetings where he actually does do battle with Voldemort and many others standing on his own two feet not knowing if any assistance is forthcoming. That is real courage.
"But thanks to the revisionist histories of J.K. Rowling, Lily's son is remembered as the world's savior."
Why? Its Harry who goes on to save the world over and over in future books, just like any hero in a series does. Assisted or not Harry is the one who is the driving force behind seeking out and fighting new threats as they come up. Its obvious to anyone with even basic reading comprehension he'd rather hang out with his friends and play Quiddtich then fight evil. He never asked to be hero.
"Being a wizard is something innate, something you are born to, not something you can achieve. As a result, Harry lives an effortless life. "
More of the same. I don't know what books this person has been reading, but Harry's life is hardly "effortless". Any Privilage granted to Harry later in life doesn't take the place of action, and Harry's actions speak for thmeselves. What's with this person's need to find a mortal flaw with Harry? Fantasy is called Fantasy for a reason. Is he supposed to die or something? Is someone here too jaded or jealous or something?
Lastly, I just don't get adults complaining or criticizing Harry Potter. This particular book series does something that not many others have. 1) it gets kids to read, which is incredibly important. 2) it give adults a series which while aimed at children, respects the adults who will be reading it. 3) it forms common ground between adults and children which when competing with MTV and the Internet isn't so easy anymore.
I'm sorry but people who criticize Harry Potter are looking way too much into it. These are the same people who look back into classic children's works and want to find sexual innuendo.
Sorry wackos, but Harry Potter has done way too much good to be brought down by people like you.
Re:What a bunch of Misguided Spoil sports (Score:4, Insightful)
As anyone who has read the books knows Harry has always been uncomfortable with his fame.
So modify the quote to "...skates through school ... while feeling badly about it." Same difference.
This is the one thing that bothers me about Harry Potter, as much as I enjoyed the stories superficially. The characters have no moral depth. The good guys are good guys; the bad guys are just mean. There's no struggle in Potter's goodness, just as there's no struggle in Malfoy's evil. The stories are finger-painted in pastels, with none of the moral ambivalences that make life (and characters) so interesting.
This is why I enjoy good literature -- because it shows me me -- the good, the bad, the failures and the (partial) successes. Harry Potter is cotton candy -- tasty, but there's no substance to take away from the experience.
Rowling could take lessons from Shakespeare -- or even Tolkien. There's a reason Shakespeare's plays are called tragedies -- because they're populated with tragic figures. MacBeth did not revel in his evils -- he was tormented by them. It was Hamlet's weaknesses in the face of his goodness which made his character so tragic. And that's where Potter falls down. There is no tragedy in Harry Potter (will Harry eventually succomb to evil, as Frodo Baggins did? Don't count on it). Even when he gets into trouble he does so for all the right reasons. He breaks rules because it is, under the circumstances, right to do so, and oh-so-dimensionless Harry Potter always does the right thing.
I think even children are quite capable of recognizing such issues -- intuitively, at least, even if they aren't able to verbalize it. I first picked up Tolkien at 12, and knew instantly I had found a treasure, even if I had to wait for Shakespeare to show me why. Harry Potter entertains, certainly. But he doesn't challenge. And that's why, in fifteen years or so, no one will remember who he was.
Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan, ROC
Re:Pampered Jock, Patsy, Fraud. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you are. The Harry Potter series is a modern-day fairy tale whose only plausible social effect is to make more children enjoy reading.
You are being far too hard on Rowling. Everyone's a carictature, we're just MORE than that. You and I are
Real characters in fiction only show up with the passage of time and real events--and the only possibilities for real characters in Rowling's work are Harry Potter and his immediate friends and teachers, who show up in greater detail throughout each book.
I've been an avid reader of fantasy since I was about 12, and I have yet to find a book that, by itself, changed my life. The books help shape my imagination and help me cultivate the aspects of myself that I like--but they're doubly passive members in my growth, because if the books didn't have something that appealed to me, i wouldn't read them like I do.
Harry Potter probably isn't "Great" children's fiction or even adult fiction--but that's all the better. It's entertaining, enjoyable, and not offensive in the least. In short, as Stephen King put it, "They're fun books."
I think the superficiality of the slashdot crowd is apparent with the Harry Potter phenomenon. There a million slashdot readers that are all slobering to be the first to prove their Alpha Geekness by insulting N'Sync or Brittany Spears when the chance comes up. But when it comes time to prove that they have some taste that goes beyond the shit the Hollywood media culture is feeding them, they lap it all up like everyone else.
Ah, but here you are betraying yourself in your own post. Hollywood is a place where movies with budgets get made--it's neither a home of all-quality movies, nor is it a place from whence quality never comes. For every three artificial stars we see from RIAA or MPAA, there's at least one who's worth listening to.
Re:Pampered Jock, Patsy, Fraud. (Score:4, Insightful)
In a lot of instances, you're right. But three big ones stand out proving you wrong:
1) Hagrid. A large, clumsy, not-so-bright oaf. But he's also one of Harry's dearest friends and, while not attractive on the outside, has a heart of gold.
2) Severus Snape. I can't think of any character in the series who is described in less flattering terms, except maybe Voldemort himself. Snape is constantly suspected by Harry and Company of being Evil Incarnate, but, while he strayed in his youth, he's now a stand-up guy. He just doesn't like Harry because of history between himself and Harry's father (actually, the author of the MSN article parrots a lot of Snape's complaints, now that I think about it). In the latest book, he's sent off on a mission by Dumbledore that is strongly hinted as being a suicide mission, and he does it bravely.
3) Draco Malfoy. This guy is the epitome of what the MSN author describes as a pampered and privileged jock. Malfoy is described as being very physically attractive, but is nothing more than a spoiled brat. In fact, he and Harry's cousin would get along famously, if Malfoy weren't such a racist pig about non-wizards.
Re:of course it's all about becoming... (Score:3, Insightful)
This presumes that children are incapable of "resonating" with adult themes, something I think is certainly not true. While children may not be able to articulate their intuitions, I think we sell them short if we assume that children can only relate to a sanitized, morally two-toned imaginary world like HP.
In that way it's much like LOTR or Dune
I disagree. HP is not at all like either LOTR or Dune. What HP lacks is not the moral certitudes -- both LOTR and Dune are pervaded with crystal clear notions of good and evil -- but the moral ambivalences which make people so human, and characters like Harry Potter so much less than that. The reason Frodo stands (figuratively) head and shoulders above Harry is because, in the end, he fails, or more, because he tries and fails. In LOTR, it is the struggle which makes Frodo a hero, despite his failure. In HP, it is circumstances which turn Harry into an accidental hero. But Harry never really struggles.
Harry is primarily a hero by happenstance. Frodo's heroism is, precisely because of his struggle, much more human than Harry's, and therefore much more compelling. Even for children.
Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan, ROC
One thing tho... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why where the spiders always leaving in a row just after each attack. Why where they there in the first place?
Did I miss something?
Re:One thing tho... (Score:2, Funny)
A giant gaping plot hole.
Re:One thing tho... (Score:2)
Now, I'd think they'd have left before the Basalisk showed up or during the attack, not afterwords, but thats just me.
He shares my views! (Score:4, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly. Many people (including Chris Columbus) find it the best book though. Funny that.
Most of the cast is back again for the sophomore film. [..] even if the boys voices have started changing and everyone is a little taller than they were last november.
Yeah, it's not like that actually happens in real life...:P
[..]
As for the FX, I think they're a bit better than last time around. Especially during the Quidditch matches.
Thank god, that was my biggest regret about the first film.
[..] And the fabric moves really well. Unfortunately the motion is all off.
It moves but the motion if off? That's probably worse.
[..]I'm hoping that handing the series off to someone besides Chris Columbus will give it a shot in the arm.
Yeah, maybe Peter Jackson....he shure goes a long way to get something right. I think that's what's needed.
Re:He shares my views! (Score:3, Informative)
Peter Jackson is not going to do the next Harry Potter book. Alfonso Cuarón is going to direct "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". If you're not familiar with his work, his most recent film is "Y tu mamá también" (hardly a children's film, I know). But he did one of the best children's films of recent years "A Little Princess" [imdb.com]. Check it out and see if you don't agree.
Muggles (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Muggles (Score:5, Insightful)
A retired bishop says Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings have revealed a need for spiritual experience.
The Right Reverend Jim Thompson says the films show how much fantasies about "another dimension" appeal to the general public.
The former Church of England Bishop of Bath and Wells says people are in search of spiritual experience and vision.
"Part of this perhaps is the re-creation of what has been lost to so many modern minds, namely the eternal dimension central to most religions, especially the Christian faith," he said.
The Bishop was speaking at the presentation ceremony for the Sandford St Martin Trust Awards for excellence in religious broadcasting.
He says he believes broadcasting has an increasingly important role as young people shun organised religion, finding the Church unsatisfactory as a way of "exploring the spirit."
Bishop Thompson's remarks about Harry Potter come after the ecumenical body, Churches Together in Britain and Ireland, urged churches to use Harry Potter a means of spreading the Christian message.
The children's bestsellers have been attacked by evangelicals in the past as glamorising the occult.
Of course, he is retired, and doesn't have to worry about being banished to Bishop of Lossiemouth for saying what he thinks. As for the Fallwells and Robertsons, they were born (again) bent of shape. The problem is when they try to bend the world to fit...
Re:Muggles (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Muggles (Score:5, Funny)
If there is, please post some examples here.
Um, christians waking you up on weekends to foist bright smiles, pamphlets and a "holier than thou"-attitude on you? Calmly undressing in front of them tends to scare them off, though.
I always thought (Score:3, Funny)
I'm 47 and I am a Potter fan.
I'm kind of amazed at what a huge hero Harry is turning into. I mean, he's twelve and he's killed a Basalisk - Conan the Barbarian hasn't killed a Basalisk....
Re:I always thought (Score:2)
(Chorus) Hi TerryAtWork!
(I can't say definitively if Conan ever killed a basilisk, but he certainly killed just about everything else.)
I can see why fundamentalists... (Score:5, Interesting)
I watched it on Friday, and (having never read the books) was surprised at how dark and spooky the film was. I'll have to investigate the books, but if the film is representative I would not let young children have much to do with Harry Potter.
Come on, I'd hardly call writing on the walls with blood, petrification, giant man-eating spiders, plants which kill with their screams, trees which try to whack people to death who come too close and the prejudice of some characters towards those not of "pure" blood Seasame Street material.
Of course, the fundamentalists are a bit over the top in their reaction to the Harry Potter phenonemon but they do have a point.
Re:I can see why fundamentalists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, we can look to the fundamentalists own book to see that they're slavering hypocrites, because there are parts of the Bible which are "unsuitable for children" because they are so violent.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but if I remember correctly, the "blood" for writing on the walls came *from* the walls (the words formed automatically). Does this differ from the Biblical Writing on the Wall in any way that really matters? Petrification is well-covered in Greek mythology (and is considered age-appropriate for the target market of this film). The deadliness of Nightshade (the plant of which you refer) is a well-known medieval legend.
But the biggest problem I have with what you've posted is the suggestion that Harry Potter's handling of the prejudice against Muggles and "mudbloods" is bad. Sesame Street deals with very similar topics (note the introduction of the Muppet with AIDS in South Africa and the firestorm of controversy there), but what Sesame Street doesn't do is *confront* the reality of prejudice; it *displays* tolerance instead. It tries to short-circuit the cycle of prejudice by influencing children early on (much to the horror of fundies of any stripe). Harry Potter, on the other hand, has acknowledged that prejudice is real and is confronting it head-on by making it so that the bad guys (those of Slytherin) are both generally unsavoury characters and are the ones who demonstrate such prejudices.
Bah.
-austin
Re:I can see why fundamentalists... (Score:2, Funny)
Scary books... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scary books... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I can see why fundamentalists... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the HP universe, magic is a technology. Nowhere is there an indication of forces or powers or gods that cannot be thoroughly understood and dealt with. There are good people, bad people, and people you're not too sure about, but they're people, using tools.
Rowling plays with classic symbols of the supernatural, yes. But she doesn't invest them with supernatural meanings. She takes away the mysticism and makes it mundane.
Christianity depends on the illusion that there's a big, scary otherworld out there that you can't find out much about, but you should worry about. Rowling will have none of that. In the wizard world, unexplained supernatural events are problems to be solved. Everybody in the wizarding world understands this. They may disagree on goals or methods, but there's absolutely no "there are some things man is not meant to understand" posturing by anybody.
Nor is there "faith". Wizarding requires skill and inborn talent, but you don't have to "believe". It works whether you believe or not. That, of course, is the fundamental difference between science and mysticism.
For fundamentalists, this is unsettling. It knocks the props out from under the stage set of religion. That drives fundamentalists nuts.
Re:I can see why fundamentalists... (Score:2)
Pah! (Score:4, Interesting)
J.K. Rowling strikes me as the worst sort of snob - someone who's suffered through what many other unfortunate people have experienced, but learned nothing except contempt for those who have not managed to escape their situation.
It's the other way round (Score:5, Insightful)
You are too old (Score:4, Insightful)
It is exactly for this reason that you probably liked *cough* *cough* Star Wars when you were small -- Luke Skywalker is exactly the same character and plays to the same wants and desires.
My two pennies (Score:5, Interesting)
I had two big problems with the first Harry Potter movie. Firstly, there was no plot; it was all backstory and setup and wide-eyed kids being led on a field trip through Fantasyland, and then at the very end, Chris Columbus says 'oh yeah, there's a bad guy too' and provides a meager showdown. There wasn't nearly enough tension through the first movie to drive the plot. Secondly, in the first movie (and the first book, too) Harry doesn't really do anything, he just gets towed through the events by the plot and by the people around him. He doesn't really make any difficult decisions which define his character.
But the second movie hits the ground running. All the messy exposition is out of the way; the characters are already established, so Columbus can start doing things with them right away. And there are plenty of times when the secondary characters leave the limelight for a little while, giving Harry the chance to show what he's made of.
The computer graphics are really well done. The flying car is terrific. Dobby is rendered well. The only thing they've still got to work on is movement: Dobby shouldn't bob and weave like a Don Bluth character every time the camera's on him, and birds have short quick motions, not smooth fluid motions.
There's one scene with Dobby where he looks like he's trying really hard to be Episode II Yoda.
So this film was fun, and I hope the other four I'll be seeing in the next few weeks (Treasure Planet, Die Another Day, LotR: The Two Towers, ST: Nemesis) are as good. This is a great movie season.
P.S.: I was surprised there was no 'In Memory of Richard Harris' dedication anywhere to be seen.
P.P.S.: Stay 'til the end of the credits for another laugh.
Re:My two pennies (Score:2)
Anyway, we're about 1/4th into the credits and we look around and there's no one left in the theater. The little scrubs come and start picking up the trash and say, "Are you staying for the credits, cause we gotta clean up the floor." I say, "Yeah, we're watching the credits (you $@#$@# stupid, punk minimum wage scrub)."
Then the lens popped off the projector -- so we left.
I've got to get the hell back to civilization. Texas is too damn podunk.
Re:My two pennies (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an unfair criticism, in my opinion.
We just watched the first movie again last night in preparation for seeing the second movie with my 11 year old today. I'm reminded of quite a bit that Harry does in this story.
Harry makes decisions and acts on them that risks what he could reasonably consider to be grounds for expulsion from Hogwarts in several places. Remember that expulsion from Hogwarts would put him back under the stairs on Privet Lane.
For example:
Recall also that it was Harry's decision to go protect the Sorcerer's Stone, which he had been warned would risk death.
I'm not a big Harry Potter fan, that would be my 11 year old daughter in my family. If I had to order them, I wouldn't place the first book as my favorite. I would agree that Harry shows less initiative in the first book when compared to the later books, but this actually makes sense considering his suddenly learning about his heritage and falling into the fantastic world of Hogwarts. That would overwhelm any 11 year old, don't you think?
If Harry had shown any more initiative, it would have strained credibility. Granted, this is Fantasy, but you still have to construct a world that can be rationalized.
But should I spend money on it? (Score:2, Interesting)
After the first few minutes of the first movie I just felt myself wanting to go read the book instead. I know that it's hard to remain true to the original material while also bringing something new to it, but this director couldn't get any closer to the source material without a restraining order. But then some of my favorite bits were cut out for time constraints.
Also, I always felt wary after finding out that the director's previous work included Home Alone.
Ah well. The books aren't that hard to read, people. They cost less than a movie admission and have much better effects if your imagination is halfway decent.
Movie 1 vs Movie 2 (Score:2, Insightful)
Just my opinion, nothing more.
Excellent idea (Score:2)
Overeager, aren't you? (Score:5, Funny)
Damn, Taco, you're going to be in line next year, when the next movie isn't until 2004? That's loyalty, folks.
But what will happen to Dumbledore? (Score:2, Interesting)
That's too bad about Snape. He was absolutley perfect in the first film. I loved the scene where he introduces the students to his potions class. The uncut version from the special features of the dvd is even better!
but Richard Harris's Dumbledore gets a lot of scenes.
Ahh, but good news about Dumbledore! His is probably the most interesting character in the first book, but some of his best lines got truncated.
Honestly, I don't know what the series will do without Richard Harris (he died recently). David Heyman, the producer of Harry Potter has already admitted that Harris is "irreplaceable" [reuters.com]. He's not just giving a polite eulogy either. Harris was spot on as Dumbledore. In fact his calm, reasoned, lilting interpretation added to my appreciation of the old wizard.
Richard Harris will be sorely missed.
P.S. Not to dismiss Harris's other roles in a varied and interesting career, but I don't want to stray off topic.
Waiting for a Special Edition (Score:2, Insightful)
Trim off an hour next time, guys.
For those who care, here's my review (Score:5, Insightful)
Even the "exciting" scenes such as the spider's lair or the climactic fight with the basilisk don't have quite the right energy. We're just never convinced that Harry even cares. He certainly never shows fear--just the same wide-eyed blank stare.
The biggest problem with the movie is not just that it's a sequel, but that it doesn't give us anything new. Perhaps that's an inherent problem with the series of books it's derived from--we're limited to the same setting and the same cast of characters. But contrast it to the Star Wars series, where each time we were able to see a new world, with new characters and a completely new adventure. The only new character in this film is the idiotic fraud, Gilderoy Lockhart, played with a gaming effort by Kenneth Branagh. But even Branagh's effort falls short--he's unable to convince us why anyone would have ever fallen for his schtick. Also unanswered is why such an incompetent fool would have been hired at Hogwarts at all.
The special effects were all very competently done, but there was nothing truly "special" about them. I agree with CmdrTaco's analysis of the handling of Dobby--he looks good until he starts to move. Unlike Jar-Jar, however, at least he is necessary to advance the plot of the film. The basilisk was big and scary, and the spiders were icky, but nothing made me gasp in amazement--there was no new rush like I felt with the battle on the ice planet in Empire, or even like the first time Harry used the invisibility cloak in Harry Potter I.
Apparently, I'm also one of the few people who don't fawn over the books themselves [I find Rowling's writing style overly bland and preachy. She certainly doesn't have the command of the language that Tolkein does {and I'm not a Tolkein fan either}], so maybe there's something in the film for fans. Judging from the rest of my family's take on the film [my wife and kids are all big fans], perhaps not. We all agreed that this movie was a big step down from the first film.
No Death Day Party -Dang (Score:2)
Why care? (Score:2)
Because I can't read but I love watching movies.
Eye candy potential (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that I'm complaining, of course. Coulson is well worth the £4.50 admission.
It's Too Long! (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, you should stay through the credits for a fun little scene at the end.
SNL on CoS piracy (Score:4, Funny)
I do have to agree with the reviewer. This movie/book is probably the weakest of the whole series. The movie to really look forward to is The Prisoner of Azkaban, book 3. It is my favorite book of the series so far and I think it starts to get to a nice level of darkness in the story. Additionally, Book 4 picks up on this darker aspect well, if not a slightly sillier story.
SNL on Cos piracy - oops typo (Score:2)
From last nights SNL "Warner Brothers reported tuesday that an illegal copy of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was leaked on line before the movie premiers this weekend. In worse news, it seems a manuscript of the movie has been available for the past 4 years."
I do have to agree with the reviewer. This movie/book is probably the weakest of the whole series. The movie to really look forward to is The Prisoner of Azkaban, book 3. It is my favorite book of the series so far and I think it starts to get to a nice level of darkness in the story. Additionally, Book 4 picks up on this darker aspect well, if not a slightly sillier story.
Looking Ahead to Film Three (Score:5, Informative)
It's been rumoured that Christopher Lee will step into the late Richard Harris's shoes as Dumbledore in the third film, although he has emphatically denied this. I'd prefer Ian McKellan myself.
Re:Looking Ahead to Film Three (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly! Now who could really tell the difference between Dumbledore and Gandalf. Be honest, now...
My thoughts on the Harry Potter movies (Score:2)
The scene changes are schizophrenic. Aside from a single one-minute laugh scene for each class, there's no indication that Harry Potter is at a school whatosever! For the remainder of the movie he might as well have been in a boarding house. Furthermore, the time changes are handled very ineptly, as in where it's halloween and then pretty much suddenly changes to christmas. Surely the kid's been doing something in the mean time? A little bit of exposition showing that he and Ron have been poring over books or doing their studies would be appropriate, yet why wasn't it done?
The whole movie feels like that in order to cram the high points of the plot into the movie they made a few too many excisions--and tried to squeeze the remaining story elements into time segments too small and disparate. Another great example is quidditch. In the book Harry Potter has to practice quidditch--and House Griffindor also plays a lot more games than just one against Slytherin. This would have been great to see on film, yet no extra sequences were shown ... and more damningly not even any mentions of Harry's grueling practice sessions or the other games whatsoever!
And I'm not normally hard of hearing, mind, but am I the only one who's having trouble hearing Dumbledore?
I hope the second movie addresses my complaints with the first. I'm going to wait for the DVD.
Short advice (Score:2)
I just wanted to get a clue : why was ti so overhyped and so on.
Actually I love the ambiences, the story is quite entertaining and I think the 2nd one (I saw it in switzerland yesterday night : we were around midnight, 300 adults in a movie theater
I for sure will go and watch the following when it's out
But I still don't want to read the book...
Only 21 mistakes so far vice first movie's 121 (Score:4, Interesting)
Here are the mistakes that fans have picked out for Harry Potter II courtesey of Movie Mistakes [moviemistakes.com]:
When Harry and Ron are sitting in the hall doing work and Hermione comes up to them she swings her leg over and it is bare. Then 2 seconds later as she is sitting down she is wearing tights.
When Harry Potter and Tom Riddle are talking inside the Chamber of Secrets, notice the bridge of Harry's nose. There is a small piece of duck tape under the bridge of the glasses to hold them in place.
When Ron and Harry are escaping from the spiders in the flying car the passenger's side window that broke earlier hitting the willow tree is not broken, you can see Ron's reflection. A minute later you see that the window is broken again.
During the final moments in the Chamber, Harry overcomes Tom Riddle (Voldemort) when putting the Basilisk tooth through the diary. If you watch carefully, you will notice that Harry is keeping his right arm idle, as it has also been posioned by the tooth. He keeps striking the diary and finally closes it for one final attack on the cover. Right before he closes it, you see his left hand still poised in the air with the tooth, but as they cut to the closing of the book right away, they show Harry's left hand closing the book with no sign of the tooth. Now they cut back to Harry's face and his left arm is still up holding the tooth.
At the beginning of the scene near the end of the movie with Lucius Malfoy fuming at Dubledore in his office, Malfoy's hair is fanned back behind his shoulders. The lighting in the room illuminates the back of his neck, where you can see his real, short brown hair.
When Harry first meets Dobby, Dobby is bouncing on the bed. There is a bulletin board of some kind with a Gryffindor flag thing on it. A couple of minutes later, the flaggy thing is still there, but the board itself is gone.
In the second to last scene when Dumbledore is talking to Harry and Ron, Ron's hair is a bit roughed and has a big cowlick. In the next shot, the cowlick is gone and both Ron and Harry's hair is neat.
In the scene where Harry has the bones in his arm regrown, we see him move his hand just before he sees Dobby, although he later claims that his arm has not healed yet. He also never shows any pain in this scene, while Madame Pomfrey told him the regrowing process would be painful.
In the scene when Harry, Ron, and Hermoine find Mrs. Norris petrified, the rest of the school comes rushing to them. How does the rest of the school find out about the attack? They couldn't of heard the Bastilik because they don't speak parsel-tongue. Harry, Ron, and Hermoine were also the first ones to discover the attack.
When Harry goes through the second door to get into the heart of the Chamber where he sees Ginny, the door closes slowly behind him. Then somehow Fawkes manages to fly though a solid two foot thick wall with the hat, how does he do this?
When the girl's restroom is flooding, Harry and Ron are going there and in the hallway, the water is about an inch high. In the bathroom, there are drains and the water hardly comes up to 1/4 inch. This is easy to see when Harry picks up Riddle's diary.
When Ron and the Weasley twins come to pick up Harry from the Dursleys in the flying car, they fly over hundreds of houses. How is it then that we and Harry can hear the car when it is quite a distance away, but the people who live in the houses that the car flies over can't? The car isn't even invisible at the time.
When Harry first meets Dobby, Dobby is moving all about, yet Harry is just focused on one spot.
When Harry is looking at the journal, a bright light appears right in his face and eyes, yet his pupils don't shrink.
When Hermoine takes the Polyjuice Potion, she takes on characteristics of a cat. Note that she took it before Harry did, yet Harry's wore off first. The Polyjuice Potion lasts for 1 hour no matter what you take the form of.
After the basilisk is killed, and Harry talks to Dumbledore, the sword used is lying on the desk, covered in blood. Harry picks it up, and it's clean and shiny. Later, when it's back onthe desk, it's all messy again.
The basilisk shown in the movie must be at least sixty feet long and 5-10 feet across. It would NOT be able to fit through pipes of any kind.
When Lockhart falls down the hole into the Chamber of Secrets, we hear him hit the ground a second or two later. When Ron and Harry jump down, not only do they take longer to get down, they also slide down the pipe, rather than fall straight down.
In the Quidditch scene, Harry breaks his right arm, but as he sits up after he falls off his broom, he leans directly on it.
In the first film, we see that Susan Bones (the red haired girl) is sorted into Hufflepuff, however throughtout the Chamber of Secrets, Susan not only has her classes with the Griffyndors BUT is also wearing a Griffyndor tie
Why care about the movie ... (Score:2)
Serious response ... because I enjoy a good fantasy movie like anyone else but I have a huge backlog of books to read (I just consumed the Ender's quad in about 2 months of spare time reading) and I just don't see myself putting these books into the list.
The first movie by most accounts was pretty spot-on, so watching the movie in 2 hours saved me at least 2 hours for reading something else.
Plus, most of the books I do want to read will not be made into movies, and those that are maybe 5% will be good adaptations. If this series is getting those 5% adaptations, then it's that much more of a joy to watch.
I bought my wife the first 4 books in hardback for the holidays last year and while she loved the gift (and it was what she asked for), she hasn't had time to read them, either (though she reads less than I do).
I certainly don't see myself sitting at the airport with a large hardbound of Chamber of Secrets (and I'm not going to buy -2- copies of the book) ... I get enough ridicule for going to see the movie at the theater when I waited to see Episode 1 (which was a far worse movie) on DVD :)
Spoilers and Criticism Ahead ... (Score:2)
Side Note here: My favorite part of this movie?? Simple the Star Trek and LOTR previews, it's going to be a nice winter with some movies that deal with deep plot and character developement, but wait would that be because the age span for those movies starts at 13 not stops!!??
Back on to the Potter Flick. Basically you get some key values expressed here that adults don't understand. One acceptance of others even if they don't have as much money or if they aren't 'pure bloods'. Two, run away from home if your gaurdians are jerks. and Three, shoot first ask questions later.
I was a bit dissapointed to see 'Eight Legged Freaks' AGAIN. And lets face it the book/movie started to get into death even more so, with a young girl dying. And of course the whole snake thing. So if anything this is going to do wonders for the nightmare department.
Personally I'd stick with a matinee showing of this movie if you plan on taking children. And definantelly wouldn't hurt to talk with your kids afterwards to reassure that this is just a movie. And definantelly be prepared for a bathroom break, this thing is more than 2 hours long.
My review... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway: if you liked the first movie, you'll like the second. If you didn't like the first movie at all, you'll feel the same about the second -- it's not qualitatively different.
The movie was actually fairly scary, and the action scenes were done quite well. If I was taking small children I would be a bit concerned. Considering that the third and fourth books were both darker and considerably more scary than the first two books, I'll be interested to see where the movies go. And if the Chamber of Secrets goes 2:40, is the Goblet of Fire going to be a six hour long epic? There will have to be more adaptation for the later books, and the director and script writer are going to have to put their own voices into those movies.
And if you haven't read the books, just read them before you see the movies. The books are easy and enjoyable reads, and there's so many copies about you should be able to borrow one easily.
Just watched the first one (Score:4, Interesting)
The personalities of the characters were different (Hermione isn't cool under pressure in the books, for instance; Dumbledore isn't just a nice grandfather type - he's actually quite amusing, making his character carry more weight when he occasionally DOES get serious), the quiddich match was ALL wrong (quiddich and flying are about freedom to Harry - do you ever get that feeling from the movie? Not really) and the sorting het didn't even sing. There's more than that, but I could come up with a list of things that I think fundamentally flaw the movie that's literally pages long. As my girlfriend said, it was like someone did a quick book report, and made it a movie.
I'm pretty amenable to Book-to-Movie conversions, but the movie was a pale shadow of the book. I LOVED LotR. I even liked Johnny Mnemonic. I'll probably never rent Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone again, let alone buy it, which is dissapointing to me.
I'll see the second one, but I've got the same expectations of it. I hope I'm wrong.
Stephen Notley (Bob the Angry Flower cartoonist) seems to think similarily to me, though. You can read his review of the second movie here [angryflower.com].
Family Viewing Guide entry (Score:5, Funny)
Kids, don't try driving your flying car [moller.com] at home.
Folklore and the Chamber of Secrets (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't read the book, but I went to see the movie the night it came out (I was interested in the spectacle of people dressing up, and was sadly disappointed that there weren't more people in costume) and what surprised me the most was the way that this one played with european folklore in a way that the first one did not. For one thing, Chamber of Secrets followed the structure of a fairy tale in a way that I didn't see in the first movie. It had the hero/object-saught axis and the helper/villain axis pretty clearly defined, which is not something that you see in a film very often, even a film that does pay homage to the fairy tale. Also, Dobby and the manner in which he can be freed comes straight out of a European legend involving a household spirit who is presented with a set of clothes in appreciation for all his work, and then takes the set of clothes and leaves. Historically, clothes were often the payment at the end of a servant's term of service, so it was interesting to see that reflected in the movie. I had a whole list of other explicit references to folklore, but now I forget. Anyway, for me (as a folklorist I suppose), that was the most interesting part of the movie.
By the way, this movie got me excited to read the books (and for the next movie) in a way that the first did not.
Adam
Harry=Luke? (Score:5, Funny)
I kept on expecting Dobby's voice to break in, saying "Harry Potter must use the Force, sir!"
Where are the adults? (My biggest problem with HP) (Score:3, Interesting)
However, something that always bothered me about the HP stories is the seemingly complete lack of responsibility by any of the adults.
The most glaring was the Malfoy-Potter duel in the Chambe of Secrets. If I were a teacher, and had told two students to use magic to "disarm only" and one sent a poisonous snake after the other - no matter how well the other could talk to it - that student would be expelled and probably face criminal charges. I mean, come on, he (at least partially) tried to kill someone!
Or with the quidditch match - Harry is chased after by a modified bludger that is obviously trying to seriously hurt him, and the adults don't do a damn thing! I mean, Hermione says that she can't zap it because she might hit Harry - but certainly someone like Dumbledore could? But none of the adults do anything!
I mean, it's not sending the best message to children - it's something akin to "You're on your own, and don't rely on the adults to help you." Grrr.
(Although I was pretty upset with the "deus ex machinae" endings of the first two. Harry's going to face certain death with - right in the nick of time, the car drives up. Or the phoenix flies in with the hat. Or his mom sacrifices herself, or or or...ugh.)
Heh. After rereading that, I realize it sounds pretty bad - but I swear I did like the movies. I just had some serious reservation about them...
New Harry Potter Books (Score:3, Funny)
Harry Potter and the Affectionate Sailor
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Bone
Harry Potter and the Brown Accident
Harry Potter and the Small Dark Hole
Harry Potter and the Misplaced Gerbil
Yeah, I know, groan...
And another very good reason... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you watch a movie based on a book before you've read the book, then the book will fill in details and often provide an alternate plot or story.
If you watch a movie based on a book after you've read the book, then the movie will often bastardize the book and ruin the whole story for you from that point forward.
So I rarely read books if I know there is a movie -- I only read them (like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter) after the fact in order to fill in details.
Re:Me, I can't wait for The Two Towers (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I like that South Park commercial that's out, where Cartman and them are acting out LotR, and they pass another group of kids.
Other kids: "We're playing Harry Potter!"
Cartman: "Hahahaha--Dorks!"
Even people who know what a "plus two" sword is can have people to look down on.
Re:Me, I can't wait for The Two Towers (Score:5, Funny)
this , nicely
Nice troll.. (Score:3, Insightful)
You do have a (weak) point, though, about Tolkien's characterization (although, *cough* I find it laughable that you'd suggest that Rowling does anything other than caricatures). I would argue that the richness of Tolkien's world is not in the characters but in their vast history, which is only barely hinted at in LOTR. Not to mention, Tolkien's work is fundamentally preoccupied with heavy theological issues, like good and evil, whereas the charactizations are of secondary importance.
Re:Nice troll.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with Tolkein's work is that what you are born is what you are. Elves are good, orcs are bad, and so forth. Given that axiom, it's difficult to have really meaningful character development. Say you're a hero, born or heroes, you do heroic things, and that's they (Aragorn, for example). Further, the moral problem is that, given that orcs have no choice about what they are, they haven't made any moral decision to act as they do. If you have to kill one in self defence, that's OK, but killing them because of what they are is ethically very dubious. That's the logic that has justified slavery and genocide throughout history. Of course Tolkien was a product of his time, but that doesn't excuse his work from a more modern appraisal.
Rowling's message is different. What you are born matters, but not as much as what you choose to do with it. Characters have to make choices, and the outcomes are often ambigious, reflecting the complexity of the scenarios in which they find themselves. And they can develop as characters, because they aren't locked into predestined fates like Tolkein's characters are.
WTF??? (Score:5, Funny)
Huh? I'm sorry but that's just stuuuupid. First of all, there a whole ton of stuff in Tolkien about individuals overcoming their racial dispositions (Hobbits are sedentary; humans are greedy; dwarves hate elves, elves trust only elves, etc.)
Whatever. You could be forgiven for not realizing this if you didn't read the books.
What shocks me is that HARRY BUTTHOLE POTTER is somehow superior in this regard. I find it shocking exactly because this "determinism by birth" is my single biggest problem with Harry Potter. Basically, Harry Potter, on his own merits, is a below-average student that breaks whatever rules he pleases, and gets away with it, and everybody still wants to kiss his ass... why... because of his PARENTS. Just because he has some fancy-ass parents, Harry Potter is some sort of living legend. He did nothing to deserve this honor. Hermione, for example, is a much more talented and diligent student, but why does nobody bow befor her? Because she doesn't have the right parents. And all the while, the movies encourage us to think that this is all OK. That we should think that the sun sets in Harry Potter's ass. Why? What the fuck did he ever do on his own merits?
I can tell you, if I were at a school and one of my fellow students was automatically the pet of the whole faculty (especially the dictatorial director), and it was all because of who his parents were... well, I would kick his ass every single day and take his lunch money. Especially if I saw that I was a much better student while nobody noticed and kept talking about how "golden child" is like some fucking baby Jesus. Well, fuck that. I mean, some of us might even remember kids who were treated this way by your schoolteachers. Their glasses were "mysteriously" broken at least once a week. Because even children understand what justice demands! Well, except in Hogwarts, apparently. That really pissed me off. I wanted to like Harry Potter, but I found myself only feeling this burning sense of injustice about how he doesn't get his comeuppance. So I wanted to punch him, maybe give him a swift kick in the balls, just so he maintains his perspective amid all the "so this is The Famous Mr. Potter" swooning.
Alas, this is only in my fantasy, so consider this post to be my first work of Harry-Potter-Related Fan Fiction.
Re:Nice troll.. (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I take major issue with you over the suggestion that there are heavy theological issues in LOTR. The view of good and evil there is so simply black and white that even a Southern Baptist hellfire preacher might take pause. All the baddies start bad, proceed badly, and end bad. Everyone else plays a fixed part. This is the nature of epic and tragedy (in Greek tragedies, it is often the character's lack of flexibility or development that brings on the inevitable dreadful events.) Just to make the vestige of a point, consider Terry Pratchett's world which is now if anything as big and complex as LOTR. Compare Aragorn to Captain Carrot. Compare Gandalf and Saruman to the faculty of Unseen University, especially the development of characters like Ponder Stibbons. I am sure that by now Pratchett readers will see what I am on about. Now explain to me why Pratchett can handle characters who develop, interact, and furthermore develop as a result of that interaction (just as with heavyweight novelists like Anthony Powell ) in a complex imagined world, while Tolkien can't. I suspect the answer is because JRRT never really lived in the real world but was an Oxford academic steeped in Nordic myth. This qualified him to write an epic within that tradition, but it was not actually his tradition.
Of course Rowling does caricatures, she is writing books for children and there has to be simplification to get the point over. But they are caricatures of people we recognise, instead of abstract cardboard sheets labelled "Wisdom","Kingliness","Nasty piece of work","Evil bastard no redeeming features". In Rowling's world the good guys turn out to have had badly behaved pasts, the bad guys may not be beyond redemption, and some characters are morally confused.
My point, however, was intended to be serious. LOTR can be made into an epic film because the characters are 2-D. For the same reason, I suggest, you can make a good Old Testament biblical epic but you can't really make an epic out of the New Testament. As soon as characters start to get complex, you cannot have an epic. Books are different, because the timescales on which you read them are such that they can range from epic to up close and personal, whether it be Doctor Zhivago or (still my favorite) Moby-Dick.
Re:Me, I can't wait for The Two Towers (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree. Firstly the character depth in the LotR novels is amazing. Character complexity is what made reading LotR such an amazing experience for me, and conversely the complete absence of such themes from the film resulted in my absolute disappointment. I personally love the bond Gimli and Legolas form despite the greater hatred between the two dwarves and elves, and this was not hinted at even slightly in the film.
In regards to Harry Potter, the characters are complex but in a local scope, and this is what differentiates the two. Harry Potter is of the low fantasy genre and LotR is of the high fantasy genre. Typically low fantasy is fantasy of local scope and few central characters undergoing the one central plot together, whereas high fantasy consists of epic scope, multiple central characters with different (and usually inter-connected) plots, and elevated language.
J.K.Rowling and J.R.R.Tolkien are uncomparable.
Re:Me, I can't wait for The Two Towers (Score:3, Funny)
dave
Re:Books (Score:2)
Luckily, these books are writen for around a 5th grade reading level, so that includes most of the population.
Re:Books (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently you've never heard of Harry Potter. This series has brought more people [back] to reading than any other. I almost never read books and I've read Harry Potter. I can name about 10 adults and even more kids with the same experience.
I thought this movie was great and that if the story wasn't the weakest of the series it would be much better than the first movie. My favorite book was the 3rd, so I'm really excited about next year's movie.
Whatever. (Score:3, Informative)
Really? You must be talking about Saudi Arabia. Or "developed" parts of Africa where literacy reaches a whopping 50%.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107947.html
Because around here in the USA, functional literacy is probably as high as it is going to go... considering that some people can't be trained to tie their shoes if they don't want to.
SO... please refrain from the literacy rate argument. There are whole load of opportunities to read in the USA or most other highly industrialized nations. So for those that can't read (or refuse to sit still long enough to learn), there is either a reading disorder, or there is an issue somewhere that doesn't accurately reflect on our efforts. Don' tblame the system. It isn't perfect, but many people won't read for a thousand reasons other than the reading programs.
Re:I Agree (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:book vs movie (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as this movie goes, I was kind of disappointed. I know I've proobly jsut instantly fallen into the steriotype of "well, the book was better than the movie," but so be it. It really felt crammed together, and didn't give the atmosphere ther first movie did. I throught everything wwas good up til tthey actaully go into the school. Diagon Ally, the flying car, the whomping willow were all good.
It just seemed like they left out the whole terror the students were supposed to be feeling. There classmates are getting petrified, and as far as I can tell, most of the students are just kind of sitting around, doing homework all the time. It left out N-H Nick being petrified, jsut had one hsot fo him floating there. That's pretty meaningless unless you read the book.
It left out the whole "everybody's araid fo Harry" part. Kids watching him in the library is one thing, but I felt in tthe book, where averybody is keeping away from him, and the Hufflepuff twit confronting him was neat.
Instead, Cloumbus chose to spend all his time n hanging shots of Harry's face, to Hermonine's face, to Ron's face, back to Harry, then Hermonine smiling, and so on. I jsut wanted to get up and kick Columbus during the whole film to get his plot back moving.
Overall, I gave the movie version a hesitant thumbs down. I wanted to like it
Re:book vs movie (Score:3, Insightful)
"Waste my time?" If you consider getting lost in a book a waste of time, I can't imagine how boring your life must be.
Reading a great book-- and not even "great" in the historical sense, but just "great" in the sense of being really entertaining and fun-- is one of life's pure pleasures. If you don't like sitting down with a book and letting your imagination run away with you, then I really kind of feel sorry for you. You don't know what you're missing.
Re:For a little more in depth commentary... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the director's cut. Chris Columbus, being executive producer, gets the absolutely final say in the cut of the film. There are scenes that were shot but ultimately cut-- which have been saved for the DVD, by the way-- but it was Columbus himself who made those calls.
This is the one-and-only "director's cut" of this film.
Re:A few problems... (Score:3, Informative)
They're kind of a red herring. Seeing spiders fleeing the scenes of the attacks naturally raises the suspicion that they have something to do with what's going on. But as it turns out, the giant spider in the forest, Agragog, has nothing to do with anything. Spiders are deathly afraid of basilisks, and that's why they're seen running away whenever the basilisk struck.
What was up with the car? It was never cleared up. No motive, etc.
The car was enchanted. Enchanted things tend to have minds of their own at times. There's really not much more to it than that.
How about the water? Why does it keep showing up?
The basilisk travels through the water pipes. When it comes out, water gets all over everything.
The attacks seem a bit contrived. Contrived in the lethality.
The basilisk legend is actually real. A real legend, I mean. According to legend, a basilisk was a serpent whose gaze was lethal. The reflected gaze of the basilisk, though, paralyzes rather than killing.
Why? To keep the body count down, of course. In a book written primarily for 12-year-olds, it doesn't do to have characters dropping dead every few chapters.
Mee'sa Dobby? I guess he will be explained in the sequel, which I will probably need to see to resolve a few loose ends.
What loose ends are those? Dobby's a house-elf, and he knows that the Malfoy's have it in for Harry Potter. He tries to warn Harry, but in perversely roundabout ways. At the end of the story, Harry tricks Dobby's owner into giving Dobby a sock, which sets him free-- house-elves are enslaved (quite willingly) until their owners present them with clothes. Your average house-elf takes pride is his work, and would consider being given clothes a shameful failure. But Dobby, because he worked for the slimy and horrible Malfoy family, was happy to be dismissed.